How to cut off Midwestern growth: Restrict immigration

The Trump administration is reportedly considering a proposal to decrease the number of refugees allowed in the country to less than 50,000 people. Nathan Rousseau Smith (@FantasticMrNate) reports.
Buzz60

But cities in the Midwest and Iowa are also relying heavily on immigration, recent studies show. For example, in 46 metro areas in the Midwest, the number of native-born residents ages 35-44 fell by 1.4 million, or 24 percent, from 2000 to 2015. An increase of 313,000 immigrants in that age group helped offset the decline, according to a study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, a nonpartisan research group.

Trump administration policies could lead to steeper declines. The president is considering lowering the cap on refugee admissions to the lowest point in decades. That could be bad news for cities like Des Moines, which has welcomed Bosnians, Sudanese, Bhutanese, Burmese and others. Those refugees have filled holes in the workforce but also made the metro a more culturally vibrant place.

On top of that, President Donald Trump has proposed slashing legal immigration in half in a decade. And unless Congress acts, his actions could end temporary legal status for immigrant children protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

CLOSE

More than 100 attend a rally supporting immigration reform in downtown Des Moines following the Trump administration's DACA announcement.

Any of these actions would cut the lifeline for slower-growing areas. This isn’t theoretical. We can look at history to see how immigration policies have affected the Midwest.

A study by the Chicago Council released this week shows that immigration has built Midwestern cities. The report looked at 13 large Midwestern cities, including St. Louis, Omaha, Minneapolis and Kansas City. The cities grew by 120 percent from 1900 to 1930, largely due to an increase in foreign-born residents.

But a series of immigration restrictions aimed at Asians, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Jews and others in the 1920s gradually had an impact. The foreign-born population of the 13 cities fell 64 percent from 1930 to 1970.

This loss especially hurt when Rust Belt cities started to decline and Midwesterners moved to the South and West. From 1950 to 1970, population of these cities collectively fell by 7.5 percent.

The 1920s-era restrictions were reversed in the 1960s, and since 1990, the 13 cities’ foreign-born population has grown 45 percent, helping offset the drop in native-born residents.

It’s not simply the major metros that have benefited from immigration. A previous study this year by the Chicago Council shows the impact in smaller cities. For example, from 2000 to 2015:

Iowa City had a 100.8 percent increase in the number of foreign-born residents.

Cedar Rapids had an 81.7 percent increase.

These gains were crucial in filling gaps in the workforce. While its overall population increased, Cedar Rapids lost 7.1 percent of its residents ages 35 to 44 in the period. Meanwhile, its foreign-born residents ages 35-44 grew 67 percent.

Numbers alone won’t bring prosperity, of course. That’s why cities must welcome immigrants by involving them in leadership roles, encouraging entrepreneurism and opening doors to education and training. They must ensure immigrants don’t remain in the shadows, fearing deportation.

Republicans and Democrats can unite to fight for the middle of the country. Our region needs more workers, heightened economic competitiveness, greater tax base and stable federal representation. But restrictive immigration policies will threaten all of the above.

“For the cities of the Midwest, restricting current immigration levels is the last thing they need: an unnecessary tourniquet applied to a precious supply of new regional residents and workers,” said Rob Paral, a fellow at the Chicago Council. “History tells us so.”